On Friday, March 6, liberal columnist Mark Shields used his weekly appearance on PBS NewsHour to harshly criticize Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress.
Speaking to co-host Judy Woodruff, Shields proclaimed that Netanyahu “made a very impassioned, I would say, eloquent indictment, criticism of the president’s policy. The Republicans were rapturous. They were adulatory. Even they were post-orgasmic.”
Shields began by insisting that Netanyahu “traveled 6,000 miles to make a very important campaign spot, appearance, under the auspices of the Republican Speaker of the House, further partisanizing what had been a bipartisan support for the state of Israel.”
The liberal columnist went on to argue that the Republicans in Congress were so “post-orgasmic” following Netanyahu’s speech they “passed, in the afterglow, the Homeland Security, which they hadn’t been able to do. So, they would have nominated him on the spot, the Republicans, if they could have.”
Shields continued his attack on Netanyahu and noted that “it’s awfully tough to pay great heed to somebody who has been so consistently wrong, as Prime Minister Netanyahu has been about that region.”
Rather than let up in his unrelenting criticism of the speech, Shields next turned his attention on House Speaker John Boehner and concluded his remarks by chastising him for inviting Netanyahu to address Congress in the first place:
But I just think that this is really a terrible, terrible precedent. I think John Boehner has made a serious mistake. I think he realizes it now...By inviting him. And I think it’s -- the implications are going far beyond this -- 170 former military officials and intelligence officials and six decorated generals publicly excoriated Netanyahu for giving the speech and emboldening Iran and poisoning or making toxic the relations with the United States president.
See relevant transcript below.
PBS NewsHour
March 6, 2015
JUDY WOODRUFF: And to the analysis of Shields and Gerson. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson. We welcome you both. David Brooks is off tonight. So, a national leader, gentlemen, came to Washington this week and spoke before a joint session of Congress, got a rousing reception, Mark. It wasn’t the president. It was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He roundly criticized any deal with Iran on its nuclear program. What is -- what are we left with after this? What are the repercussions?
MARK SHIELDS: Well, Judy, when you feel it’s necessary to say at the outset what I’m about to say or do is not political, you can be sure of one thing. It’s political. And this was a political event. This was -- Prime Minister Netanyahu could have given the speech two weeks from now, except that there’s an election 11 days from now in Israel.
He traveled 6,000 miles to make a very important campaign spot, appearance, under the auspices of the Republican Speaker of the House, further partisanizing what had been a bipartisan support for the state of Israel. And he made a very impassioned, I would say, eloquent indictment, criticism of the president’s policy. The Republicans were rapturous. They were adulatory. Even they were post-orgasmic, to the degree...
WOODRUFF: On, my goodness.SHIELDS: They passed, in the afterglow, the Homeland Security, which they hadn’t been able to do. So, they would have nominated him on the spot, the Republicans, if they could have. And he made a case which has been made repeatedly in this country by other American commentators, politicians, public figures. And he put the administration on the defensive. Now, they’re going to have to -- whatever they do come up with, if they do come up with an agreement, they’re going to have to counter the arguments that he made. And we will find out if it helped him on March 17 at home in Israel.
WOODRUFF: Yes, what -- what -- and what about the Iran -- any potential Iran deal? Did this advance the case, hurt the case? What do you think?
MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I do -- I want to agree that it’s a bad precedent for a foreign leader to come and make the case before Congress in the place where the president speaks.
George W. Bush wouldn’t have wanted this from Jacques Chirac in the middle of the Iraq...SHIELDS: ... against the war.
GERSON: Right. But -- so, I think there are problems there. But the problem is not just the protocol. It’s the argument. And the argument here is that the nuclear file that’s all this -- the emphasis, justifiably, is not the only problem here. Iran is actually on an aggressive march from Beirut to Baghdad. They have proxies with missiles aimed at Israel. They have proxies that are committing mass atrocities in Syria. They have proxies that are taking over the security sector, even the oil sector, in Iraq.
And these are the real challenges here. As the U.S. is making this case on nuclear arms, a vacuum is being filled across the region. And it’s not just Netanyahu that believes this. It’s also the Arab states that are making this complaint. That case, as you said, is going to have to be answered, is the United States abdicating its role in this region, which I think is part of the question.
WOODRUFF: So, Mark, does this make it harder for the U.S. to get the deal, for the Obama administration to get the deal that it says it’s working on?
SHIELDS: I think -- I think it -- the opposition is stiff. And I think it’s going to be tougher, Judy. I think it’s awfully tough to pay great heed to somebody who has been so consistently wrong, as Prime Minister Netanyahu has been about that region. He urged the Congress of the United States and the people of the United States to go to war against Saddam Hussein, on the grounds that it would bring positive, affirmative reverberations in the entire region.
He was making the case not simply against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, that that would destabilize and change the regimes in Iran. Now, so, he was wrong. He said in 1996 that, within five years, by 2001, Iran would have a bomb. But I just think that this is really a terrible, terrible precedent. I think John Boehner has made a serious mistake. I think he realizes it now.
WOODRUFF: By inviting him.
SHIELDS: By inviting him. And I think it’s -- the implications are going far beyond this -- 170 former military officials and intelligence officials and six decorated generals publicly excoriated Netanyahu for giving the speech and emboldening Iran and poisoning or making toxic the relations with the United States president.
GERSON: First of all, Israel wasn’t very supportive of the Iraq war. They were concerned about so many of the consequences there. But I still think what you need to do is answer the arguments here. You know, I don’t think that Netanyahu is wrong about Iran. That’s the question. But the real question, of course, is then about the details of the pact...
